Why have a Bible?

[thistle]

Proverbs 30:5-6

5
“Every word of God is flawless;(A)
he is a shield(B) to those who take refuge in him.

6
Do not add(C) to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Can you show me where anything other than the Word of God should be followed?

Regarding Proverbs your interpretation is wrong:

D-R Bible, Haydock Commenatry:

Ver. 5. Is fire-tried; that is, most pure, like gold purified by fire. (Challoner) (Psalm xvii. 31., and Jeremias xxiii. 29.) — It cannot deceive.

Ver. 6. And not any thing contrary, Deuteronomy iv. 2., and xii. 32. — Liar. Our Saviour condemned the false explanations of the Pharisees, as his Church does those of all heretics.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Regarding Proverbs your interpretation is wrong:

D-R Bible, Haydock Commenatry:

Ver. 5. Is fire-tried; that is, most pure, like gold purified by fire. (Challoner) (Psalm xvii. 31., and Jeremias xxiii. 29.) — It cannot deceive.

Ver. 6. And not any thing contrary, Deuteronomy iv. 2., and xii. 32. — Liar. Our Saviour condemned the false explanations of the Pharisees, as his Church does those of all heretics.

Not only that, but it fails to make the point cguerber wants it to. It doesn’t say “only scripture” is flawless. It says “every word of God is flawless” something to which, as a Catholic, I say AMEN! It also says, “Do not add to his words,” something again Catholics second. No one is advocating “adding to” the deposit of faith.

Simply put, nowhere in the Bible does the Bible say only the Bible is to be followed as the rule of faith. Heck, nowhere in the Bible does the Bible even tell us what books make up the Bible!

 

[JamesTheJust]

The statement in bold seems to forget that Sacred Tradition (flowing from the oral teachings of Christ and, after Him, the Apostles) would still inform the Magisterium. As you know, we reject sola scriptura. The Church would indeed still of known what to teach, even without Scripture.

As a Catholic, I agree 100% with your post. However, since Gary’s friend is a Protestant, I was leaving Sacred Tradition “out of the picture”, because introducing it would only complicate the discussion.

I suppose, though, that I should revise my statement to say, “without Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition…”

 

[bmonk]

OK, I get all that but that’s not the question. I’m asking why. If the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth, why do we need the Bible? We already have an authoritative church. Having the Bible on top of that seems superfluous. (At least to my friend’s reasoning.)

#108 seems to bring out his point. If there is danger of Scripture becoming a “dead letter,” why not just eliminate it and have all truth come from the magisterium alone? It seems to him that, if the Catholic Church is correct about its role as the pillar and support of the truth, then the Bible should not be necessary.

One function the Bible serves is to keep alive the memory of our experience of God–since the text is preserved from early days, and does not change, it keeps us “honest” so that we cannot just change whatever pleases us. The Magisterium interprets the tradition, and the Scriptures presents the tradition in unchanging form.

It is notable that for some decades, even a few centuries, we had only the Church–which in turn wrote, collected and preserved the Bible, because it does provide us that needed support.

 

[Bookcat]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

and

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

 

[po18guy]

The Bible is the Word of God, and the only Word of God. All else is under man’s direction.

Please read your own answer - it sounds silly. Do you honestly expect Christians to believe that each and every thing that our Lord said and did is in the bible? And that, if anything is missing, it is irrelevant? I refer you to John 20:30, John 21:25, Luke 3:18, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21-22 and many other verses.

YOUR Savior, Jesus Christ, said that man lives by every word that flows from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3). News flash: Your very own bible tells you, inerrantly, that it is impossible for every word from a living God to be contained in any number of books. You should feel cheated by “bible alone.”

It is immaterial if the bible is "sufficient. " The only place in scripture where “sufficient” appears is regarding God’s grace - not the scriptures. Or, is “sufficiency” a man-made idea?

Yes, it is.

 

[cguerber]

Please read your own answer - it sounds silly. Do you honestly expect Christians to believe that each and every thing that our Lord said and did is in the bible? And that, if anything is missing, it is irrelevant? I refer you to John 20:30, John 21:25, Luke 3:18, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21-22 and many other verses.

YOUR Savior, Jesus Christ, said that man lives by every word that flows from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3). News flash: Your very own bible tells you, inerrantly, that it is impossible for every word from a living God to be contained in any number of books. You should feel cheated by “bible alone.”

It is immaterial if the bible is "sufficient. " The only place in scripture where “sufficient” appears is regarding God’s grace - not the scriptures. Or, is “sufficiency” a man-made idea?

Yes, it is.

I apologize for not making that statement more clear. I sure didn’t mean that every word of God was in the Bible! I meant it’s the only book containing God’s Word. As you stated, of course there are verses stating that Jesus did many things unrecorded as in John 20:30. And John continues (John 20:31) 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Pretty good explanation of why not ‘everything’ is written down. Enough was written that ‘we may believe that Jesus is the Messiah’.

Paul tells Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:15 (NIV)
*
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.*

The NAB states it differently:

2 Timothy 3:15 (NAB) and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

The NIV says Scriptures are able to ‘make you wise’ for salvation where the NAB says scriptures are able to ‘give you wisdom’ for salvation. Big difference. The Greek word used is ‘sophizō’. Strong’s dictionary defines it as: ‘to render wise’ or ‘to make wise’.

Not sure if many Catholics use the RSVCE or not. But here is how that verse is worded:

2 Timothy 3:15 (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) (RSVCE)

15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

So, why have a Bible? I do believe that the scriptures tell us what we need to know in order to receive salvation through Jesus Christ. It’s clear that the Bible is not sufficient for Catholic theology though. Catholics need tradition and the Magisterium. I respect that.

Please, I’m not trying to start an argument! I respect Catholicism and I hope you can respect my beliefs as well.

Blessings,
CG

 

[po18guy]

I apologize for not making that statement more clear. I sure didn’t mean that every word of God was in the Bible! I meant it’s the only book containing God’s Word. As you stated, of course there are verses stating that Jesus did many things unrecorded as in John 20:30. And John continues (John 20:31) 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Pretty good explanation of why not ‘everything’ is written down. Enough was written that ‘we may believe that Jesus is the Messiah’.

Paul tells Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:15 (NIV)
*
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.*

The NAB states it differently:

2 Timothy 3:15 (NAB) and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

The NIV says Scriptures are able to ‘make you wise’ for salvation where the NAB says scriptures are able to ‘give you wisdom’ for salvation. Big difference. The Greek word used is ‘sophizō’. Strong’s dictionary defines it as: ‘to render wise’ or ‘to make wise’.

Not sure if many Catholics use the RSVCE or not. But here is how that verse is worded:

2 Timothy 3:15 (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) (RSVCE)

15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

So, why have a Bible? I do believe that the scriptures tell us what we need to know in order to receive salvation through Jesus Christ. It’s clear that the Bible is not sufficient for Catholic theology though. Catholics need tradition and the Magisterium. I respect that.

Please, I’m not trying to start an argument! I respect Catholicism and I hope you can respect my beliefs as well.

Blessings,
CG

Forgive my brazenness! I know now that you are here out of brotherly love. As to theology, since becoming Catholic, bible-based theology has struck me as rather thin. This is, I think, because it lacks the apostolic Tradition which was employed in writing the NT itself.

There are two branches of the Pentecost day Church: Eastern Orthodox (300 million currently) and the Catholic. Both have relied on the Apostolic Tradition since Pentecost. It is that Tradition that produced the written Tradition of the New Testament. Orthodox and Catholic theology is not based solely on the bible, as the unified Church was Christ-centered rather than bible-centered. Now, Jesus could have written instructions, but He did not. And, that is telling. He established a living authority in the Apostles - a living authority which reflects the living God. A living authority which we see being exercised in Acts 2 and Acts 15.

Something I have read and pondered: the Prologue to Luke (Luke1:1-4). In those four short verses, we see that Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada - from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote it only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theolphilus had already received. In fact, Luke’s Gospel was the only NT scripture that Theophilus had - and we certainly don’t think of him as an incomplete Christian or a poorly-instructed believer. He was the prototype for today’s Christian, having both the scriptures as well as the living authority of the Apostolic Tradition. He is a model for our faith.

p.s. (not to derail) I have NABs, NAB/RE, RSV-2CE, KNOX, D-R, JB, NJB, NIV, NASBs, KJVs, and various others. In a profound irony, I much prefer the KJV to the NAB, as it is easier to defend Catholic teaching using it. The NAB is a weak translation. Yet, my all-time favorite is the post-WWII Confraternity bible. Simply excellent NT (great intros and notes) combined with the OT books from the Douay-Rheims. The Confraternity OT books were introduced gradually during its production. It is a shame that it was left unfinished when the NAB was adopted.

 

[Usagi]

The ECFs praise the Scriptures as “the oracles of God.” Scripture read in the context of Tradition is the “raw data” from which Councils and other manifestations of the Magisterium work when clarifying their teachings.

Without the Scriptural assertions that Jesus and the Spirit are God as truly as the Father, combined with the constant assurance that there is only one God, we would have had no basis for the eventual doctrine of the Trinity. Without Scripture’s statements that Jesus is God and yet a human being, the same would be true of the Incarnation.

Yet (contra some Protestant thinking), the Scriptures do not contain the fully developed doctrines. They are, for the most part (Romans perhaps being an exception) not works of systematic theology nor catechisms. Nowhere in Scripture does it say “There is one God in three Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity united inextricably to – but not combined with – a truly human soul and body.” Those teachings exist as separate nuggets of information scattered through multiple writings, which is why I call it the “raw data.” It takes the Magisterium to craft specific doctrinal definitions that take into account all of the data; heresy usually involves taking one datum and ignoring or downplaying others that seem to create contradiction or paradox, but orthodoxy must embrace and reconcile all the data. But the Magisterium can’t invent new data, only work with what it’s got. Its gift is to teach, preserve, and interpret, not to bring new revelation.

Now, could God have provided all the raw data in the form of Tradition without inspiring specific New Testament writings? Yes, of course, in the same sense that He could have produced Jesus’ humanity full-grown from a rock without Mary or saved us by some means other than the Crucifixion. Inspired writings seem to be one of His things, though, so it’s hardly unexpected that He would provide some for the Christian era as He had for Israel. The error of some Protestants is the reverse of what your friend is bringing up, the notion that the completion of the New Testament marked some sort of sea change in the Church’s affairs where a living human teaching authority faded into the background because the Book was finished. (A few even go so far as to interpret Paul’s phrase about “when the perfect comes” – identifying the time when prophecy and other miraculous gifts will cease – as referring to the completion of the New Testament rather than to the consummation of Creation at the Second Coming.) In contrast, Catholics believe that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium were and are always meant to exist together and complement each other. The existence of raw data doesn’t make interpretation unnecessary (indeed, it’s the very basis on which interpretation proceeds), and even more so the existence of an interpreter doesn’t obviate the need for the raw data.

Usagi

 

[animalis]

I see full well that my flaws, as much as I avoid them could bring me to shame greater then anyone on this forum. In all there sick particularities, my lies are sick, and how great a feat it was when God introduced a intellectual substance of a hope of truth.

I would ask how would JamestheJust justify that the Church has a human and divine element as taught in Lumen Gentium. (Pope John’s Opening Speech to the Council, speaking of the Popes, he said- “They are voices which proclaim in perennial fervor the triumph of that divine and human institution, the Church of Christ…”)

Would you say that the magisterium had to utterly depend on their own counsels and frequently read the Sacred sources of Revelation? Jesus said, without me you can do nothing. But he would have to certainly be present in the magisterium role in the functionality of the body, even during the times when the Cardinals would play cards rather than study the word and its justifications. I disagree with a polarization, that the Magisterium is helpless or graceless, without the Scriptures and its Tradition.

From the Church came forth the Bible, the bible did not beset the form the Church.

In response to Graysibio, I present the Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation, particularly the last part of paragraph ten:
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I see full well that my flaws, as much as I avoid them could bring me to shame greater then anyone on this forum. In all there sick particularities, my lies are sick, and how great a feat it was when God introduced a intellectual substance of a hope of truth.

I would ask how would JamestheJust justify that the Church has a human and divine element as taught in Lumen Gentium. (Pope John’s Opening Speech to the Council, speaking of the Popes, he said- “They are voices which proclaim in perennial fervor the triumph of that divine and human institution, the Church of Christ…”)

Would you say that the magisterium had to utterly depend on their own counsels and frequently read the Sacred sources of Revelation? Jesus said, without me you can do nothing. But he would have to certainly be present in the magisterium role in the functionality of the body, even during the times when the Cardinals would play cards rather than study the word and its justifications. I disagree with a polarization, that the Magisterium is helpless or graceless, without the Scriptures and its Tradition.

From the Church came forth the Bible, the bible did not beset the form the Church.

Are you contesting that doctrine is divinely dictated to the Magisterium?

 

[WesleyF]

Historically speaking, the Bible developed as a Liturgical Book - that is as the official collection of documents that were allowed to be read during the Mass.

I think this is the best answer. The Bible was compiled so that we would know what to read in the Liturgy as the Word of God.

“For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.” (CCC 1068)

“Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.” (CCC 1069)

“The liturgy is also a participation in Christ’s own prayer addressed to the Father in the Holy Spirit. In the liturgy, all Christian prayer finds its source and goal.” (CCC 1073)

So why have a Bible? Answer - So that we know what to read in the liturgy. It isn’t therefore surprising that one of the factors considered in compiling the books of the Bible is whether the books were being used in the liturgy.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Bible is God’s word–anyone who doesn’t want a copy of His word that they can read everyday is crazy and is in danger of Hell!

 

[animalis]

Are you contesting that doctrine is divinely dictated to the Magisterium?

No. “For the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be apprehended, - as that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and without which they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action; *not only in order that *they may know, by the manifestation of that grace, what should be done, but moreover in order that, by its enabling, they may do with love what they know.” (S. Augustine; On Rebuke and Grace, 3)

St. Bonaventure, in his Collations of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, says in Chapter One, that the knowledge of Grace is loveable, the knowledge of Glory is desirable.

The Magisterium is founded on the Word of which we can know by analogy. The love is the commitment, and the form of their virtues - as us all in the body of Christ. The magisterium is caught up in harmony with the Word (expressed tangibly in Scripture, intangibly in Tradition). They do what they love in the habitual intercourse amongst the predestination of the saints. By which they know their own good, which is the good of the Church.

 

[JamesTheJust]

No. “For the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be apprehended, - as that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and without which they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action; *not only in order that *they may know, by the manifestation of that grace, what should be done, but moreover in order that, by its enabling, they may do with love what they know.” (S. Augustine; On Rebuke and Grace, 3)

St. Bonaventure, in his Collations of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, says in Chapter One, that the knowledge of Grace is loveable, the knowledge of Glory is desirable.

The Magisterium is founded on the Word of which we can know by analogy. The love is the commitment, and the form of their virtues - as us all in the body of Christ. The magisterium is caught up in harmony with the Word (expressed tangibly in Scripture, intangibly in Tradition). They do what they love in the habitual intercourse amongst the predestination of the saints. By which they know their own good, which is the good of the Church.

Scripture and Tradition are the only divinely dictated public revelations. Without them, we would not know that which is necessary for salvation.

 

[bmonk]

Originally Posted by JamesTheJust:
It is true that the canon was only defined at the Councils of Rome in 382, of Hippo in 393, and of Carthage in 397. But to say that “we didn’t have the Bible” would be false. We had the writings, and the canon was more or less agreed upon. The Magisterium has been using Scripture since it was written, not only since it was canonized. Undoubtedly, Scripture was used to condemn Arius and his followers at Nicaea.

Though the Magisterium would be protected by God from error without Scripture, it still would have no idea what to do.

The statement in bold seems to forget that Sacred Tradition (flowing from the oral teachings of Christ and, after Him, the Apostles) would still inform the Magisterium. As you know, we reject sola scriptura. The Church would indeed still of known what to teach, even without Scripture.

I agree. In fact, we could say even more. We did know what to do–preach the Gospel, organize the Church, gather to pray and to “break the bread” in the Eucharist, care for the poor and needy, identify and collect the Scriptures, begin to understand and explain what we believe, and so on. All this from the earliest days, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles describes.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I agree. In fact, we could say even more. We did know what to do–preach the Gospel, organize the Church, gather to pray and to “break the bread” in the Eucharist, care for the poor and needy, identify and collect the Scriptures, begin to understand and explain what we believe, and so on. All this from the earliest days, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles describes.

I meant “do” as in the context of “teach”, not as in to literally perform an action.

This was settled earlier.

 

[animalis]

Scripture and Tradition are the only divinely dictated public revelations. Without them, we would not know that which is necessary for salvation.

St. Bonaventure said, “Two things are necessary for salvation; namely, knowledge of truth and practice of virtue. Knowledge of truth can be found through the Law. But the practice of virtue comes about through grace.” (Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit; 1, 2)

Would the Law of the Gospel be what you say is “divinely dictated”? If that be so would it exclude Ecclesiastical law from the Eternal Law?

I am sure you agree there is one Lawgiver.

 

[JamesTheJust]

St. Bonaventure said, “Two things are necessary for salvation; namely, knowledge of truth and practice of virtue. Knowledge of truth can be found through the Law. But the practice of virtue comes about through grace.” (Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit; 1, 2)

Would the Law of the Gospel be what you say is “divinely dictated”? If that be so would it exclude Ecclesiastical law from the Eternal Law?

I am sure you agree there is one Lawgiver.

I believe you are misunderstanding me. What I mean is that there is a difference between Magisterial teachings and Scripture + Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are divinely inspired, whereas Magisterial teachings are simply divinely protected. Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God, but Magisterial teachings are the words of men protected from error by God.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

In a discussion I had recently someone came up with a point I had no answer for: If the Catholic Church is right about being the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), why bother with a New Testament at all? The person didn’t have an issue with the church taking this role prior to the completion of the NT canon, but not since. He argues that, even though there was some dispute over the books, it was minor. The canon was effectively settled shortly after the and of the 1st century AD.

Yes, we have both and the church uses the Bible in its teaching role, but why not just have the church and not bother with the Bible, at least the New Testament?

Sorry if my question isn’t clear.

The importance of Sacred Scripture cannot be stressed enough by the early church fathers.

Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1)

Clement of Alexandria (150?-213?), “They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves,” (Stromata 7:16:3)

Origen (185? - 252), “No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures,” (Tract. 26 in Matt.)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (200? - 258), “Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written … If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed,” (Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium).

Athanasius (300? - 375),
“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas)

"5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6** These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.** Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ " (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:5-6)

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6)

Ambrose (340? - 396), “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315? - 386), “Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures,” (Cat. 4)

Jerome (342? - 420), “Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1) As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it,” (Adv. Helvidium)